So I'm sure some of you guys have already heard about it, but Against Me! singer Tom Gabel has come out as transgender, and will proceed with medical procedures to fit his body to his gender identity and take the name Laura Jane Grace.
This is somewhat a big deal, Against Me! being a rather popular band who reached inside the top 60 on the Billboard 200 with consecutive Albums. And got a lot of praise. And people in the punk rock community are very, very supportive.
Laura's gender issues have worked themselves into her lyrics for a while now too, so this isn't really out of the blue.
Bush appointed federal judge in Connecticut finds that the definition of marriage as given in the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and has no conceivable rational basis. What I find interesting is that this case was decided based on the Fifth Amendment, rather than the Fourteenth.
It's not, but let's say Adam and Steve live in Maryland, drove to Connecticut to get married, and now want a divorce. Previously they would've had to do it through CT courts driving up there every time there's a hearing. Now they can do it in their own state.
Am I the only one who considers this a minor victory? Sure, I'd rather have marriage legalized as well, but it hasn't even been 10 years since MA, so even as little as we have I think is huge progress.
Bush appointed federal judge in Connecticut finds that the definition of marriage as given in the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and has no conceivable rational basis. What I find interesting is that this case was decided based on the Fifth Amendment, rather than the Fourteenth.
*Puts on his Constitutional Law hat*
The "Due Process Clause," in the Fourteenth Amendment, which is what most of these cases are trying to sue under, doesn't apply to the Federal government, it only applies to the states. If you want to bring a due process type of case against the Federal Government, you have to use the Fifth Amendment which protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure.
1) Since the states issue marriage licenses it is up to the states to decide what constitutes a marriage.
Didn't Alabama tried to argue it could deny interracial marriages based on this same premise? Because the state is responsible for the paperwork does not mean it can violate civil rights.
That's exactly what came to mind to me. EDIT: The following ruling is on the case of case of Loving v. Virginia. Quotes from the Supreme Court ruling on the matter:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.
Also, race is more strongly protected than gender in constitutional matters. Racial limitations get stronger scrutiny than gender limitations. It's kind of fucked up, but there it is.
Well Abraham Lincoln was famous for saying, "Sorry, slaves, but color isn't as strongly protected under the Constitution as gender." So I guess just because there's a faulted legal precedent means it should always stay that way. It's a tradition, after all, and I for one think that should trump civil rights.
Also really hoping to get that Zune for Christmas.
My solution has the added bonus of shutting down the "states rights" crowd in part because it allows the states to define marriage with the feds recognizing what the states have decided. That would include tossing out DOMA based on states rights arguments (feds don't regulate marriage so they never had the authority to pass DOMA in the first place.)
Other states would likewise have to recognize the marriages just as they do other state issued licenses. Individual states could say,"we honor yours but will not issue any in our state." Just as they already do with other forms of licenses.
Other states would likewise have to recognize the marriages just as they do other state issued licenses. Individual states could say,"we honor yours but will not issue any in our state." Just as they already do with other forms of licenses.
Not all licenses are created equal. States still wont recognize each others handgun licenses half the time. Without the feds stepping in, the reddest states would still refuse to recognize same sex marriage licenses.
Whether or not the feds would then force the issue is a whole different question.
Interracial marriage is different. That was an example of something legal being forbidden to a segment of the population based on racial prejudice.
Redefining marriage to be gender neutral is a major change to the current tradition.
No Steve, it is not different. It is the exact same fucking thing. It is something legal being forbidden to a segment of the population. True, the reason why it is forbidden is different, but that is a superficial distinction with no value to the argument.
It is also not redefining marriage. Marriage still remains the recognition of the social union between people by a higher authority. The authority in question being the state. Whether those people are of the same gender or not is pretty much irrelevant, and is in no way a useful distinction that warrants establishing or protecting a barrier. Putting up a blatant tradition fallacy is also not helping you, just like the tradition fallacy never does.
Your states rights argument is also bullshit, because yes, some states issue certain licenses and others do not, but every fucking state issues marriage licenses! It is not a different license!
Interracial marriage is different. That was an example of something legal being forbidden to a segment of the population based on racial prejudice.
Redefining marriage to be gender neutral is a major change to the current tradition.
No Steve, it is not different. It is the exact same fucking thing. It is something legal being forbidden to a segment of the population. True, the reason why it is forbidden is different, but that is a superficial distinction with no value to the argument.
It is also not redefining marriage. Marriage still remains the recognition of the social union between people by a higher authority. The authority in question being the state. Whether those people are of the same gender or not is pretty much irrelevant, and is in no way a useful distinction that warrants establishing or protecting a barrier. Putting up a blatant tradition fallacy is also not helping you, just like the tradition fallacy never does.
Your states rights argument is also bullshit, because yes, some states issue certain licenses and others do not, but every fucking state issues marriage licenses! It is not a different license!
You're assuming that you definition is shared by all interested parties. It is not. I agree with you that it's fething stupid, but that's the way it is.
The states rights argument is perfectly valid. Again it's fething stupid, but the states have their own standards for what qualifies for divorce, inheritance, and a number of other familial issues. It makes sense for them to have their own requirements and licenses for marriage too.
The distinction is important. Marriage equality is about changing marriage from one man and one woman to the gender neutral definition of any two people. That is leaps and bounds different than the civil rights issues that surrounded the bans on interracial marriage in the past.
Think of it this way: A state has a hunting season on Gnomes in which it sells licenses. The licenses are for one gnome each and the only weapon you can use is a shotgun.
The state suddenly changing the rules midseason to prevent certain gun and ammo combinations (Ruger shotguns can only use Ruger ammo) would be equivalent to an interracial marriage ban. Gender neutral marriage would be someone trying to use a non-shotgun to hunt gnomes or hunting something that is not a gnome.
The move towards gender neutral marriage is a huge change to the tradition of marriage. We are moving in that direction but saying it is the same as the fight for interracial marriage makes you appear ignorant.
Comments
Also this video had me in tears. I have nothing but respect for this woman and the fact that she is a Republican makes it even better.
This is somewhat a big deal, Against Me! being a rather popular band who reached inside the top 60 on the Billboard 200 with consecutive Albums. And got a lot of praise. And people in the punk rock community are very, very supportive.
Laura's gender issues have worked themselves into her lyrics for a while now too, so this isn't really out of the blue.
The "Due Process Clause," in the Fourteenth Amendment, which is what most of these cases are trying to sue under, doesn't apply to the Federal government, it only applies to the states. If you want to bring a due process type of case against the Federal Government, you have to use the Fifth Amendment which protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure.
1) Since the states issue marriage licenses it is up to the states to decide what constitutes a marriage.
2) The feds will treat ALL married couples the same regardless of gender. As long as the issuing state says the marriage is legal feds will too.
EDIT: The following ruling is on the case of case of Loving v. Virginia.
Quotes from the Supreme Court ruling on the matter:
Redefining marriage to be gender neutral is a major change to the current tradition.
Also really hoping to get that Zune for Christmas.
Other states would likewise have to recognize the marriages just as they do other state issued licenses. Individual states could say,"we honor yours but will not issue any in our state." Just as they already do with other forms of licenses.
Whether or not the feds would then force the issue is a whole different question.
It is also not redefining marriage. Marriage still remains the recognition of the social union between people by a higher authority. The authority in question being the state. Whether those people are of the same gender or not is pretty much irrelevant, and is in no way a useful distinction that warrants establishing or protecting a barrier. Putting up a blatant tradition fallacy is also not helping you, just like the tradition fallacy never does.
Your states rights argument is also bullshit, because yes, some states issue certain licenses and others do not, but every fucking state issues marriage licenses! It is not a different license!
The states rights argument is perfectly valid. Again it's fething stupid, but the states have their own standards for what qualifies for divorce, inheritance, and a number of other familial issues. It makes sense for them to have their own requirements and licenses for marriage too.
The distinction is important. Marriage equality is about changing marriage from one man and one woman to the gender neutral definition of any two people. That is leaps and bounds different than the civil rights issues that surrounded the bans on interracial marriage in the past.
Think of it this way: A state has a hunting season on Gnomes in which it sells licenses. The licenses are for one gnome each and the only weapon you can use is a shotgun.
The state suddenly changing the rules midseason to prevent certain gun and ammo combinations (Ruger shotguns can only use Ruger ammo) would be equivalent to an interracial marriage ban. Gender neutral marriage would be someone trying to use a non-shotgun to hunt gnomes or hunting something that is not a gnome.
The move towards gender neutral marriage is a huge change to the tradition of marriage. We are moving in that direction but saying it is the same as the fight for interracial marriage makes you appear ignorant.